I think we're pretty much done here. Whatever macabre sense of humor Death had in the first installment of
this franchise has transformed into a rotating string of filmmakers pushing the
envelope of how gory they can make the demises of their characters. Final Destination 5 brings in a new director (Steven Quale) and
screenwriter (Eric Heisserer) and one new idea to the table: Killing another
human being will appease Death's need to take the lives of the survivors of a
disaster.

It's actually a solid concept in a series that
desperately needs one after four previous movies that basically do the same
thing over and over with minor variations (The second movie's "Death is
working in reverse" conceit is probably the laziest of the bunch, while the
fourth movie doesn't even try anything new). Alas, it comes so late in the game (after the characters learn all the
details the audience has known since the first time around) that it's used once
before a generic, climactic showdown involving a guy with a gun who wants to
kill someone. Yes, the franchise
that stood out from the crowd by not having a tangible killer picking people off
has been reduced to having just that.

For those new to the mix, a brief rundown is
necessary. The hero (here, named
Sam and played by Nicholas D'Agosto) has a vivid premonition about a looming
disaster (here, the collapse of a suspension bridge) in which he watches as
assorted people die (here, by crushing by a falling car, impalement (twice),
burning with hot asphalt, a clean slice in half, etc.). The protagonist awakens from the vision just in time to save those
involved (here, Sam's co-workers at a paper company on a bus ride to a retreat,
including his girlfriend Molly (Emma Bell), who dumps him right before getting
on the bus), only to discover that all the survivors are dying off one at a time
in the same order seen in the prophecy (here, at a massage parlor, during laser
eye surgery, on a factory floor, etc., etc.).

No matter how many times the characters wonder
aloud for a rationale to their fate, there's no explanation or reason for this
phenomenon, except for the one presented by the local coroner (Tony Todd): Death
doesn't like to be cheated. In
addition to the absence of a physical force at work, the series has always been
fascinating on some level for its stark, unwavering, and almost nihilistic
outlook on that unavoidable piece of the human condition.

Anyway, the survivors consist of Molly, Sam's
immediate supervisor Peter (Miles Fisher), an intern and gymnast who's dating
Peter named Candice (Ellen Wroe), the tall brunette with glasses named Olivia
(Jacqueline MacInnes Wood), the perverted Isaac (P.J. Byrne), the newly hired
Nathan (Arlen Escarpeta), the jerk of a head of the office Dennis (David
Koechner), and, of course, Sam himself. Part
of the success of a horror movie really boils down to whether or not we want its
characters to outlast the inevitable doom before them. Part of the problem that arises with the overtly fatalistic tone of this
series is that the thought of whether or not these characters can live barely
registers. They're going to die;
it's only a matter of time. The
fact that these eight barely come across even as basic types only augments the
sense of apathy regarding them.

So the deaths proceed as per usual, with
Quale's camera hovering around details of the scene of the imminent fatalities
for the purposes of foreshadowing or bait-and-switch fake-outs. They inevitably become quicker and less elaborate as the movie
progresses, which means the sense of anticipation (always more satisfying than
the payoff) decreases. I'm
uncertain about the physics of one (a body basically crushes under its own
weight), and after setting up the bit involving laser eye surgery, the result is
wholly anticlimactic. The real
focus of the culmination of the mishaps is digital blood and body parts.

At least Heisserer tries to work a different
angle into the formula. There's an
inherent moral dilemma in giving the characters a choice to potentially alter
their destiny at the cost of the life of someone else (Could someone who does
this live with themselves afterwards?). Peter
grapples with it for a bit, and another character unintentionally (or, perhaps,
begrudgingly) takes advantage of a perfect opportunity. A federal agent (Courtney B. Vance) who suspects foul play from the start
seems to be present to set up one conflict but winds up, like the idea itself, a
convenient way to work into another, more standard one.

Final Destination 5 is frustrating. The opening sequence and even some of the moments of pure shock value are
effective in a demented way, but it's further evidence that this franchise is
running on fumes.

Note:
I'm of the persuasion that 3-D is wholly a gimmick, best suited to this kind of
equally gimmicky material. Even
though Final Destination 5 was shot in 3-D, added depth barely registers
apart from a few moments, like an eyeball rolling toward the camera and the
emergence of intestines here and there. And
that's probably the weirdest criticism involving the format I've yet to make.